[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Final draft of proposed mailing list rules
On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 04:47:28PM -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> I agree with your statement that the unfiltered list exists to monitor
> claims of "censorship" however there is a little more to it than that. If
> certain individuals choose to engage in or continue in disruptive
> behaviour including but not limited to Denial-of-Service attacks, mail
> forgery, or profane personal attack resulting in suspension of their
> posting rights to ga-filtered or further sanctions, the actions of the
> individual *absolutely* need to be included as part of the "official"
> record and made available for public inspection to be credible.
However, "available for public inspection" is not the same as "put on
continuous public display". Stuffed off in an ftp directory serves the
purpose just as well. But we have a different understanding of the
nature of the unfiltered list...
> Doing so serves to offer recorded justification for any *initial* actions
> against them, but more importantly once filtered, in the case a continuing
> pattern of behaviour or repeat occurances on the unfiltered list, serves
> to justify continued and/or more severe sanctions taken against them.
> If the unfiltered list were construed to be somehow "unofficial" then it
> would be difficult if not impossible to credibly point to behaviour on the
> unfiltered list as any sort of justification for continued/increasingly
> severe sanctions any more than it would be appropriate to point to an
> individuals behaviour on any other list unrelated to this one as
> justification for actions taken agains them on the "official" list.
As I said, we have a different understanding of the nature of the
unfiltered list. The purpose of the unfiltered list is to give a
*completely* open forum, to the extent that the technology can
reasonably provide. As I understand it there aren't any penalties for
posting garbage to the unfiltered list -- if Baptista wants to post
pornographic poems he is free to do so, and we won't stop him. It's
only if he tries to do that the the ga list that sanctions would be
imposed. So the ga-unfiltered list can't be used as evidence for
justifying sanctions on the "real" list. Baptista could subscribe to
both, and be a perfect gentleman on the ga list, and a fool on the
unfiltered list. The material he posted to the unfiltered list would
not impact his ability to post to the ga list.
The idea is that if you want to vent, you can go to the unfiltered
list; if you want to work, you use the "true" list. I use "true" here
to mean "the list that is actually associated with the work of the GA".
Since by definition the unfiltered list is not associated with the work
of the GA, there is no real point in archiving it.
> > Sorry, you misunderstand the intent. The unfiltered list is not the
> > "true record".
> Actually it is, as it is a *complete* record of all that has occured on
> the list. The filtered list by definition is not, and as such does not
> offer the "complete truth."
I think the term "unfiltered" is causing confusion. A more accurate
description of the reality is that there are two lists; a person may be
subscribed to one or both of them. All posts to ga are forwarded to
ga-filtered, but not the reverse. Some posts to ga may not be forwarded
to ga, if the poster is in a "timeout" as determined by the SAA or
> It may be ugly, and people may not choose to
> wade through it, however they should at all times have the right to decide
> that for themselves, rather than having a definition of "true record"
> imposed upon them, especially given the extremely contensious enviroment.
They can do that by subscribing to the "unfiltered" list.
> > It is you who has the apples and pianos. There are *no* significant
> > rights inherent in GA "membership", just as there are *no* significant
> > rights inherent in IETF "membership".
> Given that the GA is comprised of list members, the ability to subscribe
> and post to the list would, contrary to your view, seem to be *the*
> fundamental right of membership.
It would be more accurate to say that there is *no* "membership", and there
are *no* "rights" of membership. More accurate would to say that you
"participate" in the GA, but you aren't a "member" of the GA.
> This position is further strengthened by
> provisions contained in the very proposal we have before us: to create a
> filtered version of the list and to disallow posting rights to those
> individuals that cannot behave themselves. It is difficult to take away
> rights someone does not have(unless you are the IRS of course...)
> Given the proposal does in fact contemplate *taking away* certain
> abilities under certain conditions, then logic would suggest that
> by default the abilities/rights were presumed to exist.
We are talking about posting rights to the list firstname.lastname@example.org. We are
not talking about rights of "membership" in the GA.
> > In fact, "membership" is not well defined for either organization.
> While I am in complete agreement with you on this subject, Ellen
> graciously retreived and included minutes from a previous Names Council
> meeting which while completely devoid of any other useful information on
> membership quite explicitly defines the GA membership as the subscribers
> to the email@example.com mailing list.
As I said, that changed subsequently.
> > This is an important and fundamental concept, and until you understand
> > it you will be shadow boxing with ghosts.
> I think rather than chastising Ellen for her supposed lack of
> understanding you might do well to re-read and consider the pertinent
> meeting minutes defining the GA as the subscribers of the firstname.lastname@example.org
> mailing list.
As I said, the NC changed that definition at least twice since. This
was discussed at some length on the ga list itself, during the debate
about who should be able to nominate.
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
email@example.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain